When did you realize that Fyodor Dostoevsky was the Michael Jordan of writing books?

When did you realize that Fyodor Dostoevsky was the Michael Jordan of writing books?

Attached: 477B5D7B-9D8C-4089-9E3A-6C0298A1C6F7.jpg (170x197, 16K)

How is being a college freshmen going for you? Do you like life in the dorms?

I don't know what that means, translate from nigger speak

based

Who would you say is the Michael Jordan of writing books?

He’s better than Tolstoy, I’ll tell you that.

Who offers the best translation of his work???

Not P&V that's for sure

I don't see any slang in OPs post

After reading C&P and the Idiot, and then enjoying even minor works like The Double and his novelettes. I'm considering reading The Village of Stepanchikovo next.

I mean, MJ is a good hoopball player. Is that the extent of the comparison?

>t.

Attached: 0AA19E73-D6CF-44E3-B6C7-41B85A7287BE.png (406x452, 30K)

They both suffer(ed) from serious gambling addictions.

>doesn't even speak Russian

enlighten us then

Their translation of Notes of the Underground is lacking, but C&P and BK were rly well done

What's lacking about it?

god i wish that were me

Wrong.

audibly keked

it soon will be.

Attached: voyage of life old age.jpg (4000x2691, 1.95M)

A lot of people don't like how they changed the introduction to Notes. To be fair, they did make it a lot less poetic.

Dostoyevsky died from hitting his head on a table.

You're the Michael Jordan of making really interesting threads, op.

P&V

avoid Garnett at all costs

What did he mean by this? What are Dostoevksy's stats? How many MVP awards does Dostoevksy have? Is writing books a sport or something?

Jordan is widely regarded as the GOAT, or "greatest of all time".

more like gayest of all time lmao

how many pictures of dead writers are there

Attached: proust.jpg (500x431, 44K)

I'll add to the list

Attached: Mishima head.jpg (584x834, 62K)

Literature is art and art is subjective despite being able to be judged on qualitative terms. While there does exist a type of meridian dividing good and bad literature as well as a peak for the GOATs, this is purely based on structure, prose, and diction. If a well written book is written around an irrelevant topic or uninteresting characters, it is not a good book; this however is subjective to the reader. This is why while I can concede that Dickens is a good writer, I cannot stand his work barring GE. It is also why high school me loved Catcher in The Rye despite it's lackluster writing which is often swept under the rug due to the unreliable narrator meme. That being said, most people would find Dostoevsky to be a more compelling author to the modern reader due to his depth in analysis of human nature, a topic which somewhat transcends time.

Attached: sylvia plath.jpg (422x646, 61K)

Thats not real

Except it is.

Then you shouldn't have a hard time posting a source.

Maybe the baseball era MJ.

Like, unironically?

Don't be a stupid nigger. Just reverse image search the picture and you'll see it's actually Plath's body.

>Catcher
>lackluster writing
You're probably the most stupid person on this board right now.

Post a source then.

Who cares about a source, its her.

Wrong

t. cancer incarnate

Anne Frank

Attached: 3CE440FE-092C-47B3-9278-7535C07D7AF1.jpg (225x225, 16K)

Imagine fucking her in that position

Not even him, you're a fucking retard. Use google